Phillips v. R.R. Dawson Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 12 August 2014
• Docket Number: 2:14-cv-00480-LSC
• Parties: LISA PHILLIPS, et al., Plaintiffs; v. R.R. DAWSON BRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

LISA PHILLIPS, et al., Plaintiffs; v. R.R. DAWSON BRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants.

2:14-cv-00480-LSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

August 12, 2014

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Plaintiffs Lisa Phillips, Deborah Phillips, Lomax Phillips, Jr., Deangila Phillips, and Keira Phillips (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") filed this action in state court, seeking damages stemming from the death of Lomax Phillips. Defendant Miller Formless Co. ("Miller Formless") removed the case to this Court, and the Plaintiffs have moved to remand the case back to state court. (Doc. 8.) Miller Formless has also filed a motion to remand one of the claims but asks the Court to retain jurisdiction over all other claims. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons stated below, the Plaintiffs' motion to remand is due to be granted, and the motion to sever is due to be rendered moot.

I. BACKGROUND¹

Lomax Phillips ("Phillips") worked for Defendant R.R. Dawson Bridge Company, LLC ("R.R. Dawson"), in Bessemer, Alabama. As part of his job, Phillips worked on a bridge construction project along Interstate 85 in Montgomery County, Alabama. On January 8, 2014, he was working in an overhead bridge wagon lift (the "Lift") approximately 90 feet above the ground when the Lift lost support and crashed to the ground. Phillips was killed in the incident, and the Plaintiffs have brought this suit as the heirs to his estate.

The Plaintiffs filed suit on January 10, 2014, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The complaint alleges a variety of state law claims against Miller Formless, R.R. Dawson, and Defendant Samuel Poynter ("Poynter"). According to the complaint, Miller Formless improperly designed, manufactured, and distributed the Lift. Additionally, the Plaintiffs contend that R.R. Dawson and Poynter failed to properly inspect and maintain the Lift. Finally, the Plaintiffs have pursued a workers' compensation claim against R.R. Dawson.

Miller Formless removed the action to this Court on March 18, 2014, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. According to the notice of removal, the Plaintiffs are all citizens of Alabama. Defendant R.R. Dawson is a citizen of Kentucky, and Miller Formless is a citizen of Illinois. However, like the Plaintiffs, Poynter is a citizen of Alabama. The notice of removal suggests that the claims against Poynter and the workers' compensation claim are fraudulently joined with the other claims in this action. On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the entire case, contesting these two issues.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"'Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,' possessing 'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'" Gunn v. Minton, - - - U.S. - - - -, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994)). In the removal context, a defendant or defendants may generally remove to federal court any civil action filed in a state court if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, "'[a] removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.'" Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002)). This Court mustconstrue the removal statute narrowly and resolve all doubts as to jurisdiction in favor of remand. Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996).

III. DISCUSSION

First, the Court turns to the workers' compensation claim. Phillips died while on the job, and thus the Plaintiffs brought a claim against R.R. Dawson under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, Ala. Code §§ 25-5-1 et seq. Congress proscribes the removal of such actions, providing that "[a] civil action in any State court arising under the workmen's compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). This provision is "a jurisdictional-based limitation on the district court's removal power." New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood Inc., 388 F. App'x 902, 905-06 (11th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a district court should have remanded a workers' compensation claim to state court even though it was raised over 30 days after removal because § 1445(c) is a jurisdictional statute). Both parties agree that this claim is due to be remanded, but Miller Formless contends that this Court should retain jurisdiction over the other claims.

According to Miller Formless, the Plaintiffs have attempted to fraudulently jointhe non-removable workers' compensation claim in an action that would otherwise be removable on the basis of diversity. "Fraudulent joinder is a judicially created doctrine that provides an exception to the requirement of complete diversity." Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, joinder is fraudulent when a plaintiff names an in-state defendant against whom there is no possible cause of action or when a plaintiff fraudulently pleads jurisdictional facts regarding an instate defendant. Stillwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 663 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011). Additionally, fraudulent joinder exists "where a diverse defendant is joined with a nondiverse defendant as to whom there is no joint, several or alternative liability and where the claim against the diverse defendant has no real connection to the claim against the nondiverse defendant." Triggs, 154 F.3d at 1287. This basis for fraudulent joinder exists in "egregious" cases of misjoinder. See Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 1996) (overruled on other grounds in Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 2000)). As to the workers' compensation claim, Miller Formless raises only this third basis for fraudulent joinder. In order to establish that joinder is fraudulent, Miller Formless has the burden of proving the "fraud" by clear and convincing evidence. See Stillwell, 663 F.3d at 1332.

If joinder is appropriate under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure("Rule 20"), joinder is not fraudulent. Brooks v. Paulk & Cope, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1274 (M.D. Ala. 2001). The Plaintiffs may join multiple parties as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any questions of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). All of the claims in this case stem from Phillips's death while on the job. Indeed, Phillips's heirs did not have any cause of action based on either the allegedly defective Lift or Phillips's employer's conduct until Phillips died while working for R.R. Dawson. See Brooks, 176 F. Supp. 2d at 1276. Thus, the first element of Rule 20 joinder is met. Second, there will be common questions of fact because the circumstances of the injury may be relevant to both the claims against Miller Formless and the claims against R.R. Dawson. Id.

Indeed, the Alabama workers' compensation statute expressly allows a plaintiff to bring workers' compensation claims at the same time it brings other claims:

If the injury or death for which compensation is payable . . . was caused under circumstances also creating a legal liability for damages on the part of any party other than the employer, whether or not the party is subject to this chapter, the employee, or his or her dependents in case ofdeath, may proceed against the employer to recover compensation under this chapter . . . , and at the same time, may bring an action against the other party to recover damages for the injury or death, and the amount of the damages shall be ascertained and determined without regard to this chapter.

Ala. Code § 25-5-11(a). The use of the phrase "at the same time" suggests that the Plaintiffs can join a workers' compensation claim with their tort claims against Miller Formless. Williams, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1265. Thus, the Plaintiffs have not fraudulently joined the workers' compensation claims with the other claims in this case.

Alternatively, Miller Formless contends that even absent fraudulent joinder, the workers' compensation claims should still be severed from this action. Congress requires the federal courts to sever non-removable claims that are joined to federal question claims:

(1) If a civil action includes—

(A) a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (within the meaning of section 1331 of this title), and

(B) a claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute, the entire action may be removed if the action would be removable without the inclusion of the claim described in subparagraph (B).

(2) Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1), the district court shall sever from the action all claims described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the severed claims to the State court from which the action wasremoved. Only defendants against whom a claim described in paragraph (1)(A) has been asserted are required to join in or consent to the removal under paragraph (1).

28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). However, Congress has not provided any such procedure for diversity claims. By its plain language, Congress requires severance in cases involving federal question claims joined with non-removable claims to the exclusion of diversity claims. See Anderson v. Cagle's, Inc., 488 F.3d 945, 955 (11th Cir. 2007) (emphasizing that statutory interpretation begins with an analysis of the plain meaning).

Miller Formless cites the Court to Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055 (11th Cir. 2000), where the Eleventh Circuit remanded a...